CPGB (PCC)

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zanthorus
CPGB (PCC)
Printer-friendly version

Just a heads up, the following was in this weeks 'Fighting Fund' piece in the Weekly Worker:

"In relation to our internal disagreements, articles are in preparation on leftwing communism..."

For the last few weeks as well, the CPGB (PCC) has been publishing articles on the 1920 formation of the original CPGB, mentioning and denouncing Syliva Pankhurst and the Workers' Socialist Federation and their opposition to Labourism and Parliamentarianism:

The politics of purity: Communist unity was threatened in 1920 by anti-Labour sectarianism
 

Laying the foundations: Left sectarianism had to be overcome to win communist unity in 1920
 

I do get a giggle every time they mention 'leftism', 'leftist purity' and suchlike. Anyway, I'd like to see a reply by the ICC to this slander, but I understand you guys aren't interested in dialogue with groups which we would consider the left-wing of capital. In lieu of that, I'd like it if I could get directed towards some fairly comprehensive pro-Pankhurst sources, or any sources in general about the British Communist Left (Apart from the ICC's book of course, I alread know about <i>that</i> one  ).

 

Devrim
Try this book by Mark

Try this book by Mark Shipway, and this pamphlet by Wildcat to start.

Devrim

 

Alf
CPGB

 we don't have a fraternal dialogue with leftist groups, but that isn't a reason for not answering them. So we will certainly take a look at what the CPGB is saying.  

Devrim
Quote:"In relation to our

Quote:
"In relation to our internal disagreements, articles are in preparation on leftwing communism..."

This is interesting. Revently two groups ib the UK, the 'Commune and Permenant Revolution' have shown signs of breaking from mainstram Trotskyist positions in a direct influenced by the communist left.

Alf wrote:
 we don't have a fraternal dialogue with leftist groups, but that isn't a reason for not answering them. So we will certainly take a look at what the CPGB is saying.

Perhaps it is worth an online article on what the left are saying about the formation of the CPGB on its aniversary.

Devrim

vstanrabotnikov
re

Yes, I have heard that there has been some 'councilists' and other left-communists present at CPGB meetings who are apparently members of the CPGB itself. I think this owes in some part to the CPGB's very wide criteria for accepting new members.

Also, if I'm not mistaken the commune are generally considered to be sort of 'libertarian communists', not trotskyists: http://thecommune.wordpress.com/1/

Devrim
the Commune

vstanrabotnikov wrote:
Also, if I'm not mistaken the commune are generally considered to be sort of 'libertarian communists', not trotskyists: http://thecommune.wordpress.com/1/[/quote]

I think you will find they came out of the AWL.

vstanrabotnikov wrote:
Yes, I have heard that there has been some 'councilists' and other left-communists present at CPGB meetings who are apparently members of the CPGB itself. I think this owes in some part to the CPGB's very wide criteria for accepting new members.

Really it reflects badly on the ICC that people like that end up going towards the CPGB.

Devrim

 

 

 

Zanthorus
CPGB's Internal Disagreements

I think the internal disagreements part is a reference to the fact that there is a faction in the CPGB that opposed the CPGB's calls for a vote for Diane Abbot in the labour leadership elections. I think that's partly what this sudden onslaught of 'anti-Left-Communism' is about.

vstanrabotnikov
re

I have heard that the CPGB do have a left-communist/councilist faction that turn up the heat during the debates, I've never been to a CPGB gathering of any sort though.

Devrim wrote:
I think you will find they came out of the AWL.

Point taken but last time I was at the anarchist bookfair, directly opposite the ICC stall there they were, they were doing kind of vegan sandwiches or something. If you look at their politics generally I think 'libertarian communism' neatly fits, along with many of the lifestylist bits and pieces you find in anarchism.

Devrim wrote:
vstanrabotnikov wrote:
Yes, I have heard that there has been some 'councilists' and other left-communists present at CPGB meetings who are apparently members of the CPGB itself. I think this owes in some part to the CPGB's very wide criteria for accepting new members.

Really it reflects badly on the ICC that people like that end up going towards the CPGB.

Devrim

If you look at the flow of how people get into left politics, it makes quite a lot of sense. The CPGB presents itself as an open and viable organisation, of course we know it is opportunist, overall its vibe is quite positive and outward looking even if it has all kinds of strange questionable factional ideas going on inside it (Macnair's Kautskyism for example). The ICC on the other hand gets stuck straight into struggles, sparing time only once every two weeks outside Camden tube with a street stall, for directly trying to appeal to workers on the streets (not forgetting the ones in other parts of the UK but I'm just referring to London here for now).

In some ways, it would seem the best way for internationalists of all the political currents to link up and find out whether they have enough in common to struggle together, is actually in struggle.. which is why inviting militants to participate in struggles seems like a rock solid idea. I haven't really gotten into a struggle alongside ICC militants yet, though I think I understand the core principles and that we'd share very common ground.

I found out a lot about L&S as an example, by their behaviour during the occupation of Visteon, they stood by the trade union for much of it, then the workers got sold out and they begun criticising the 'union bureaucracy'.

Devrim
CPGB

Zanthorus wrote:

I think the internal disagreements part is a reference to the fact that there is a faction in the CPGB that opposed the CPGB's calls for a vote for Diane Abbot in the labour leadership elections. I think that's partly what this sudden onslaught of 'anti-Left-Communism' is about.

 

Those who opposed a vote for Abbot were supporting John McDonnell:

"John McDonnell, for all his faults, leads the Labour Representation Committee and is involved in supporting strikes and the struggles we face as a class, such as opposing the third runway at Heathrow. This stands in stark contrast to the path Diane Abbott has taken.

...

The left should have based clear conditions on supporting any candidate in the Labour leadership election. Are they for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan? Are they against the cuts agenda? Based on Abbott’s less than clear support for troops out now and her vague commitment to oppose cuts, those with a vote should either return a spoilt ballot or abstain."

Devrim

Zanthorus
The John McDonnell thing

Ooops! Should've been paying more attention  

Zanthorus
CPGB article on Left-Communism

I'm assuming this is the article on Left-Wing Communism that was being referred to in last weeks 'Fighting Fund':

Lessons of Lenin's "Left-Wing" Communism

To be honest it's quite lame, just parroting Lenin's arguments from LWC: AID. I could probably whip up a decent reply to it myself.

Devrim
Why don't you. Send it to us,

Why don't you. Send it to us, and we will put it up on the website, and send it to them and they will quite possibly print it.

Devrim

Zanthorus
Replying to the CPGB

Funny, I had just PM'd Alf suggesting that one useful thing I could do would be replying to this article. I'll get right on it  

devoration1
That would be great. LWC: AID

That would be great. LWC: AID is brought out constantly by Marxist-Leninists: as if we were 'dealt with' almost a century ago.

I look forward to reading your reply as well.

Zanthorus
Not going so well

Urgh, Conrad's piece is so broadsided and attacking so many things at once it's difficult to reply to. I've managed to get five A4 pages of material so far, but at practically every junction I find myself unsure and having to go back and research this or that aspect of something.

idk, maybe I just need some sleep and tomorrow I'll be able to do it, but I'm not really up for tearing my hair out over this.

Devrim
Maybe

Zanthorus wrote:

Urgh, Conrad's piece is so broadsided and attacking so many things at once it's difficult to reply to..

Maybe it is better to concentrate on a main point or points.

Devrim

 

 

Zanthorus
There is no main point

There is no main point besides the fact that Conrad thinks he can lump together the Social-Revolutionaries and advocates of individual terrorism, anarchist and 'libertarian' communist groups, some otherwise orthodox centrists in the CPGB who happen to have taken a position a little too far to the left for Conrad's liking and the historic Communist Left, then subsequently canonise the whole lot en bloc as 'leftist puritans' and dismiss them. 

Zanthorus
Finished!

Returned to the piece today and managed to finish

I'm e-mailing the CPGB now.

I do have a slight problem, in that the ICC doesn't have an e-mail address on the 'contact us' section, but instead it has an e-mail contact form, with no option for attachments. What address should I e-mail to?

Devrim
address

Zanthorus wrote:
I do have a slight problem, in that the ICC doesn't have an e-mail address on the 'contact us' section, but instead it has an e-mail contact form, with no option for attachments. What address should I e-mail to?

 

I have pmed you on Revleft about this.

Devrim

Marin Jensen
CPGB article loaded

We've loaded the CPGB article on the front page - hope the title suits everybody. I personally think this is very good.

There aren't any e-mail addresses on the site, because they are an invitation to spammers (they use scraper software to pick up e-mail addresses wherever they can find them). But for anyone who has the same problem, then just use the contact form, we will get the mail and can then provide you with an e-mail address to write to.

Devrim wrote:

Really it reflects badly on the ICC that people like that end up going towards the CPGB.

Devrim 

I don't want to get into a deep reply on this, but I think that a bald statement like that simply underestimates a lot of objective historical factors which are independent of our own will. Doubtless the ICC makes its mistakes - who doesn't? - but we also need to be aware that things we can't change: for example, the fact that a lot of people want "action"and don't always think through the kind of action that will get the results they want (big problem in a lot of the InterPro assemblies that have been appearing in France) , or the fact that adopting left communist politics demands a truly radical break with a kind of general "left-wing" atmosphere and even social milieu. This doesn't always win you friends.

I would also want to know more about the people in the CPGB who think they are "left communist" and how they square that with the CPGB's politics, however "reconstructed" it may be.

Zanthorus
The title isn't exactly what

The title isn't exactly what I would've gone for but it does get the point about attempting to quell the left in a similar way to the Stalinists across.

As for how Left-Communists would relate to the CPGB's politics, they do occasionally publish good critiques of liberal anti-fascism and popular frontism, even if their alternative is to go back to the Trotskyist policy of the united front. They also critique the reformism and bureaucratic internal life of groups like the SWP and the SPEW.

The CPGB's politics are not entirely homogenous either, you get different shades of centrism from different writers. Jack Conrad seems to uncritically tout Lenin's line on the right of nations to self-determination while Mike Macnair in his book on Revolutionary Strategy critiqued Trotsky's advocacy of unconditional defencism for colonial nations, saying that such a policy could tie the working-class to a collapsing bourgeois government.

 

 

KT
The Elephant in the Room

First: to salute Zanthorus on an excellent, well argued article, and second, to welcome its speedy publication by the ICC.

If there are elements within the CPGB who in any way relate to the arguments - historical or current - of the 'Left Communists' then it is absolutely correct to attempt to intervene in this process.

The difficulty - perhaps it is only mine - is one of historical perspective.

To cut a long one short, the multi-faceted discussions around the formation of a Communist Party in GB in the early 1920s were those within a proletarian vanguard: they were part of us, warts and all. 

Today it's not the same: the CPGB is not one expression, amongst many, of a revolutionary vanguard, or even a minority seeking clarification. On the contrary, the CPGB is an organisation at the service of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie.

The communist parties, formed in the elan of the revolutionary wave between 1917-1928, were eventually, one way or another, integrated into the service of 'their own' national bourgeoisie: they became organisations of the ruling class whose function was to serve the interests of the national capital. Their specific role: to capture revolutionary elements seeking to defend workers' interests and to neuter, negate, transform this energy into support for the staus quo.

They are - yesterday and today - part of what we refer to, in shorthand, as leftism: the political left face of capital.

For the CPGB, as for many 'national' communist parties, the definitive passage from proletarian organisations to those in service to the ruling class came during the onset of WW2 when they actively participated in the slaughter of worker by worker: when they became recruiting agents for inter-imperialist butchery.

The post WW2 history of the CPGB confirms this. The post 1989 collapse of the 'Soviet Empire', and the subsequent convulsions and splits in the CPGB - including those today proudly and uncritically claiming their continuity with this organisation, as against the 'Euro - Social Democrat pragmatists' - also underline the fact that this organisation today is still in the orbit of capital.

Surely, somewhere in the introduction to Zanthorus's excellent article, the fact that we are addresing a bourgeois organisation might have been mentioned?

Readers of this debate - perhaps most readers of the site - might take that as obvious. But if we are also addressing people as yet unversed in the difficult business of separating communist politics from those of the ruling class, the 'thin red line' should have been drawn. As we reach out, take nothing for granted.

Concrete suggestion: amend the introduction on ICC Online to Z's article. Already, the title makes him queasy. Spell out why you've correctly given such a headline.

 

Alf
Alf

 I agree with KT that clarity on the nature of the CPGB is very important. There are formulations in the article which give the impression that the CPGB is part of the communist movement, rather than being an organisation on the extreme left of capital.

On the other hand: today's 'CPGB' has very little organisational or even political continuity with the old British CP. Its politics are more Trotskyist than Stalinist. At the same time, we are in a period where many fringe groups within leftism are in a state of disarray, and within that process we can find elements who are trying to develop in a proletarian direction. Elements in the Commune group for example, even if the group as a whole has yet to to break its umbilical ties with leftism. It could well be that similar processes are going on in the CPGB and that Conrad's article was precisely an attempt to prevent them from getting out of hand.  It is certainly important, as comrades have already said, that we should be around to relate to those elements who are trying to break out of the whole rotten framework of leftism. Our section in the Philippines, was the product of a comparable process.

 

Marin Jensen
Title was not that great...

The reference to Stalin, on reflection, seemed inappropriate and rather off the point, so we changed it. Not sure that the new title is brilliant either, but hopefully our readers will concentrate on the content.

Zanthorus
Left-of-capital

KT wrote:
The post WW2 history of the CPGB confirms this. The post 1989 collapse of the 'Soviet Empire', and the subsequent convulsions and splits in the CPGB - including those today proudly and uncritically claiming their continuity with this organisation, as against the 'Euro - Social Democrat pragmatists' - also underline the fact that this organisation today is still in the orbit of capital.

 

The CPGB (PCC)'s continuity with old CPGB is more organisational than anything. They abandoned 'Anti-Revisionist' Stalinism in the mid-90's after working out that the USSR wasn't so great after all. Alf is correct to say that the modern CPGB is much closer to Trotskyism than Stalinism, however I don't think they fit anywhere in the Stalin/Trotsky dichotomy. They advocate a return to the old Social-Democratic style minimum-maximum programme, since they consider Trotsky's transitional programme to be economistic, for example. They pay more explicit homage to Kautsky than to Trotsky. Left-Kautskyism would probably be a good descriptor, as they accept most of the theses of the pre-'renegade' era Kautsky, while rejecting his statism.

As for why I didn't explicitly describe them as a bourgeois organisation, I don't think the 'left-of-capital' label is particularly conducive to discussion.

 

KT
Agreement

What's interesting about this tiny grouplet is the response it's engendered - the attempts by elements inside but mainly outside it - to argue against its attacks on left communism. In fact, there are two new letters in its current publication. No-one is arguing that we should ignore this: on the contrary.

Neither did I criticise Z's letter for failing to explicitly describe them as a bourgeois organisation: my modest suggestion was that the ICC itself might have mentioned this when it published Z's letter and could still do so. It's not the same thing.

As for their 'continuity' with the Stalinists of old: evidently it's a different organisation with a different paper propounding a different mish-mash of leftism: an example of the left's attempts to adapt and undoubtedly a sign of dissaray as Alf says. Good. That doesn't mean we should forget their origins or the fact that the CPGB cadre mentioned - Conrad - is the self-same individual who applauded and justified the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the supression of Polish workers in 1980 and who organised the picket outside the Czech embassy to celebrate the 10th anniversay of the Soviet invasion there! The proletariat has a memory too!

 

Zanthorus
Conrad

Really? I wasn't aware of Conrad's history, but I am quite young. He seems to have repented somewhat since then at least, he denounced Trotsky's work Terrorism and Communism for it's reversion to 'Jacobin-Communism'.

Devrim
Link

radicalchains wrote:
They have recently replied to the ICC's article about them via podcast.

Here is the link:
http://cpgb.podbean.com/2010/11/08/left-communism/

Devrim

devoration1
I'm half-way through the

I'm half-way through the podcast and it seems apparent that they are backtracking- at a good clip too. We are to believe they don't wish to insult Pankurst or Bordiga or Left Communism, and were only describing anarchists and Social-Revolutionaries of the putschist-terrorist variety. Mhmm.

Zanthorus
Devrim, where are you quoting

Devrim, where are you quoting from?

Sheldon
Quote

Zanthorus wrote:

Devrim, where are you quoting from?

https://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/hmmm/4056/make-use-online-med...

Devrim
Source

Zanthorus wrote:

Devrim, where are you quoting from?

From another thread on here, 'Make use of online media' page two.

I just thought there might be some people interested in this thread that weren't interested in that, so I reposted it.

Have you listend to it?

 

Devrim

 

Zanthorus
CPGB Podcast

Yes, the user Die Neue Zeit on Revleft PM'd me about it. I thought it was quite poor to be honest. I realise that Conrad wasn't trying to attack the Communist Left specifically, but part of my point was that lumping disparate tendencies together and attacking them for some percieved common thread like 'petty-bourgeois ultra-leftists' is not an honest tactic. Further, he did attempt in the piece to critique various positions of the historical Communist Left. He doesn't even attempt to make a reply to any points raised, except for on the parliament question where he attacks a position which I already said was incorrect.

KT
You're a Centrefold Star

Briefly got my hands on a printed copy of the Weekly Worker for November 4: Zanthorus, your article was splashed (advertised) on the front cover and is the centrepiece of the newspaper - a very well presented double-page spread: not on the letters page, mind.

I didn't have a chance to read it, but as far as I could see, was re-printed word-for-word (including footnotes) under the headline 'In Defence of Left Communism' and with the strap reading: 'James Tansey takes issue with Jack Conrad.' You can see a version of the printed copy in PDF format in the back issues section on their website, though it's much more impressive in print. Also, the print version has a different front cover with the 'splash' reading 'ICC Defends Left Communism'! while inside it describes you as 'ICC member James Tansey' but the on-line version doesn't.

I'm sure this will give rise (in left communist circles) to some debate as to why the CPGB has given you, the discussion about Left Communism in general, and now the ICC in particular, such wide exposure and whether it's a 'good thing': I think it's brilliant! And also interesting, I think, is that the print version of Weekly Worker assumes its readers know exactly who and what the ICC is while the online version doesn’t mention the organisation anywhere!

 

ernie
Typical method of the Left to attack the Communist Left

The point about the reply is not really whether it is honest or not, Conrad probably believes he was replying to the article. You can also say why does Conrad totally ignore your call for him to actually refer to the texts by the Communist Left in reply to Lenin or to refer to the role it played in the working class. However, the aim of the reply is not to engage in a discussion on the nature of the Communist Left but to try and discredit the influence of the Communist Left on some members of the CPGB and above all to defend the CPGB's efforts to trap those seeking a revolutionary alternative within the bourgeois framework of parliamentary politics. This is made clear when he says 'how can you get the masses to fight for you, if they do not vote for you/. Apart from reducing the working class to a mass to be used by the party, this puts forward the idea that parliament is a tool to be used by the class. 

This avoidance of any real discussion of the Communist Left, reference to its main texts and its history is typical of the Left of capital. It is summed up in the usual line, Ah the Communist Left, it has some interesting things to say, but has no real connection with the working class. To defend this idea one has to totally distort history, as conrad does. Above all they try to avoid discussion of the Communist Left's intransigent defense of internationalism because this is the class line between the Left of capital and the Communist Left.

Lenin's book was seen by him as a polemic between comrades, for the Left it is the means for trying to discredit the revolutionary tradition that maintained Lenin's internationalism.

 

 

 

 

Devrim
Lenin's little book of counter revolution

Double post please delete

 

Devrim
Lenin's little book of counter revolution

ernie wrote:
Lenin's book was seen by him as a polemic between comrades, for the Left it is the means for trying to discredit the revolutionary tradition that maintained Lenin's internationalism.

 

Quite possibly. It doesn't stop him coming across as a school teacher lecturing errant pupils, and it didn't stop the book becoming a manual for failure for the European revolution by using his and the RCP(B)'s great prestige to inflict counter-revolutionary politics on the young communist international.

Devrim

 

ernie
That is true, but Lenin's aim

That is true, but Lenin's aim was not to undermine the revolution.

ernie
That is true, but Lenin's aim

That is true, but Lenin's aim was not to undermine the revolution.

Devrim
Nor did Tony Cliff

ernie wrote:

That is true, but Lenin's aim was not to undermine the revolution.

really so what? I am sure that subjectivly people like Tony Cliff never had the 'aim' of undermining the class struggle. They still need to be criticised though.

Devrim

 

ernie
The difference between Cliff

The difference between Cliff and Lenin is one of class. Lenin defend and fought for the world revolution, whereas Cliffe was a defender of imperialism. 

This does not mean that Lenin is beyond criticism, clearly not. However, Lenin  was a comrade, as he was seen by most of the Communist Left at the time and since. So the rigorous criticism that needs to be and has been carried out, has to be seen as part of the discussion within the same movement.

Devrim
Difference between Cliff and Lenin

Of course, I don't consider Cliff a comrade. However, in his defense he was never implicit in the massacre of thousands of workers as was Lenin. There was a point where Lenin was on the side of the working class, yet there is equally a point where he acted directly against the interests of the working class, and effectively crossed the class line.

As the ICC has stated "due to the international isolation of the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik Party was absorbed by the state and the latter identified itself with this state against the working class."

Lenin ended up standing with this state against the working class, and in my personal opinion, by the end of his life was objectively a defender of Russian national capital.

Devrim

devoration1
I think Cliff contributed

I think Cliff contributed some interesting theoretical work, but his legacy is abysmal.

Devrim
Cliff

devoration1 wrote:

I think Cliff contributed some interesting theoretical work, but his legacy is abysmal.

 

I don't really gree on his work. I don't think there is that much to Clff's version of state capitalism.

Devrim

 

devoration1
I enjoyed his analysis of the

I enjoyed his analysis of the Cuban, Chinese, etc CP's and the revolutions which took place. Specifically that in both cases, the 'middle-classes' (specifically the intelligensia, students, etc) played the most important role in the formation of statified state-capitalist one-party regimes by providing leadership and direction. In neither example (CP of China and CP of Cuba) were workers the dominant participants- which really puts a wrench in the works of Marxist-Leninist and bourgeois history. Other explanations for the Marxist-Leninist state capitalist parties and regimes (a 'bourgeois revolution against the bourgeoisie', workers misled by adventurists and reformists, etc) don't really explain the phenomenon.

Though I'm still learning about the subject and would be happy to find a more workable model of analysis for the 20th century phenomenon of state capitalist parties and regimes.

kinglear
was Lenin a comrade?

Devrim wrote:

Of course, I don't consider Cliff a comrade. However, in his defense he was never implicit in the massacre of thousands of workers as was Lenin. There was a point where Lenin was on the side of the working class, yet there is equally a point where he acted directly against the interests of the working class, and effectively crossed the class line.

As the ICC has stated "due to the international isolation of the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik Party was absorbed by the state and the latter identified itself with this state against the working class."

Lenin ended up standing with this state against the working class, and in my personal opinion, by the end of his life was objectively a defender of Russian national capital.

Devrim

My first reaction to this is horror, then amazement that anyone could be so bold as to say it, followed by a sort of sad resignation that I suppose it's true. The ICC is brutally savage in it's criticisms, is no respecter of persons, but is always and unfailingly loyal to the proletariat. And it is for this reason that the ICC is beyond value and is to be loved.q

d-man
 I like take this opportunity

 I like take this opportunity to say that I also had such a feeling when reading the new series of ICC analysis of the bolshevik revolution. But we shouldn't deceive ourselves in to thinking that such statements are bold. After all, they merely repeat what a Kautsky or a Martov wrote in 1919. I got this feeling also about the left communist in Russia (decists). They speak analytically the same language (about Bonapartism, lack of democracy, etc.); the only difference is they all the time exclaim their enmity to the mensheviks (and anarchists) and swear loyalty to the Octobre revolution. That is not meant to be a smear, it is just that the 'social traitors', or in the case of Lenin 'bolshevist traitor', by crossing the class line, didn't suddenly lose their mind and we can just dismiss everything they say.

radicalchains
Recently I think the members

Recently I think the members who these articles were aimed at left the organisation. I decided to reply to the latest reaction in the Weekly Worker. I'll post it below, you can also read it on their website in the latest edition of their paper in the letters section.

 

As a regular reader of the Weekly Worker and sympathetic worker regarding your engagement and discussion with the existing left and working class, I was surprised to read about the proposals for non-voting rights for new members of your organisation (‘Taking membership seriously’, July 5).

This appears undemocratic on the surface, but is made worse by the fact that Provisional Central Committee members will be allowed to cut short the candidate membership of those they see fit. We can only presume this will mean in practice some new members will not have full voting rights within the organisation, while others chosen by the leaders of the organisation will. This, in my opinion, opens up the whole organisation to abuse by the leadership, who could tactically and opportunistically recruit in their specific interest and that of their personal ideas and perspectives.

This seems to be not a method for encouraging new debate and ideas within the organisation, but a potential safety valve for the current leadership to stop any drastically different perspectives gaining hold of the organisation ... like left communism, perhaps?

Android
WR got a mention in WW's letters page.

WR also got a mention in the letters page, via a contribution from CPGB writer Mike Macnair on the definition of 'sectarianism':

http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/922/letters

 

Alf
CPGB

Moreover, it is addressed to a specific phenomenon in the workers’ movement which is quite marginal to modern sectarianism: that is, the existence of trends (Fourierists, Owenites, etc) which argue against the existence both of trade unions and of workers’ parties like left Chartism. There are groups of this sort in the modern left, like (in their different ways) the Socialist Party of Great Britain and World Revolution. But the far left groups in general are not sects in theCommunist manifesto sense

 

So: we and the SPGB  are Fourierist/Owenites, the trade unions today are the same as they were in 1848 and the Labour party today is the same as the Chartist party.... 

Android
Yep!

That is what he is saying. It is not surprising when you are aware that their strategic orientation is based on a modified version of the Second International model, of mass parties based on minimum and maximum programme and the 'democratic republic' as the specific form of proletarian dictatorship.  

It is interesting how they disown SPGB, when the differences between them are essentially rooted in SPGB's rejection of the minimum programme of classical social democracy. Otherwise, there is similarities in the two organisations - (1) the prominet role of democracy in their politics - they both open the door to socialism being achieved through parliament, SPGB more explicitly, of course; 2. the belief that a conscious majority is a necessary precondition for a social revolution;